PAULA BIANCA B.

EGUIA SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION CASE

DIGEST

G.R. No. 187208 February 23, 2011

CEFERINA LOPEZ TAN Petitioner,

vs.
SPOUSES APOLINAR P. ANTAZO and GENOVEVA O. ANTAZO Respondents.

LEGAL DOCTRINE

 A petition for certiorari issues only when the following requirements are alleged in and
established by the petition: (1) that the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) that such tribunal, board or officer
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

FACTS:

Respondent Spouses Apolinar and Genoveva Antazo are the registered owners of two parcels of land which
was a subject of an accion reinvindicatoria suit with damages filed by them against petitioner for encroaching on
their properties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Binangonan, Rizal, rendered judgment favoring the
respondents. Consequently, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was later denied by the RTC. Aggrieved,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for
adopting a wrong remedy or mode of appeal. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was subsequently
denied in a Resolution.

Hence, the instant recourse grounded on a sole assigned error – that the Court of Appeals has decided a
question of substance in a way not in accord with law or with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.

Petitioner maintains that she rightfully filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. While conceding that certiorari is available only if
there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioner avers that
her case presents an exception to such general rule because the decision rendered by the trial court is an example of
an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. Petitioner justifies the mode of appeal she adopted before the Court of
Appeals in that under the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for
reconsideration, i.e., Resolution of the RTC.

On the other hand, respondents contend that the instant petition deserves outright dismissal for being
fatally defective due to failure to show competent evidence of the identities of the affiants who signed the affidavit
of service and the verification and certification against forum shopping. Respondents also assert that certiorari is not
the proper remedy to assail the decision issued by the RTC. Being improper, respondents argue that the filing of the
certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals did not toll the running of the appeal period. Consequently, the RTC
judgment had already lapsed into finality. Respondents also emphasize that petitioner raises questions of facts
which are beyond the purview of this Court to resolve.
ISSUE:

Whether or not a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals against the Decision and
Resolution of the Regional Trial Court is the proper remedy in this case.

RULING:

NO. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction of errors
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is to keep
the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged
in and established by the petition: (1) that the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) that there is no
appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In this case, only the first requisite is here present. Petitioner correctly impleaded the trial court judge in her
certiorari petition.

Regarding to the second requisite, it is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has
jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the part of the
petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Mere abuse of discretion is not
enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility

Petitioner argues that the trial court’s judgment is void for lack of factual and legal bases. This allegation is
worthy only if it is read to mean that the questioned judgment did not state the facts and the law on which it is
based, i.e., that it violates Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
However, the assailed decision substantially complied with the constitutional mandate. While the decision is
admittedly brief, it however contains all factual bases to support its conclusion. A petition for the writ of certiorari
does not deal with errors of judgment. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties'
respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight. Verily, the errors ascribed by petitioner are not
proper subjects of a petition for certiorari.

Anent the third requisite, a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the
aggrieved party. The party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is proscribed from assailing the decision
or final order of said court via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court because such recourse is proper only if the party has no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. Furthermore, certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute
for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.

In this case, the remedy of appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court was clearly available to petitioner. She
however chose to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As the Court of Appeals correctly surmised and pointed
out, petitioner availed of the remedy of certiorari to salvage her lost appeal. The Court denied the instant petition.